Abstract
Control constructions are surely a part of the basic fabric out of which all languages are constructed, for they find expression in languages of the most diverse types. The notion of “control” is to be understood here in its broadest sense, taking in any non-freely interpreted empty category — thus including missing objects as well as missing subjects — as well as any non-freely selected anaphoric element — thus including pronominals in finite clauses that must be coreferent with a nominal in some other, higher, clause, as is the case in sentences such as (1):1
-
(1)(a)
John i looks like he i/*j is sick
-
(b)
*John looks like it is sick.
Several friends and colleagues — Peter Culicover, David Dowty, Richard Janda, Robert Levine, Shigeru Miyagawa, David Perlmutter, Irene Philippaki-Warburton, and Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou — deserve thanks for extremely useful discussion with me of aspects of this paper. Similarly, Richard Kayne, Roger Higgins, Donka Farkas, and Sabine Iatridou provided helpful comments on this paper as it was presented at the MIT Symposium on Control, March 17, 1989. Finally, Bill Davies very kindly provided me with an early version of his paper on Javanese complementation. As usual, none of these kind souls bears any responsibility for what I say here in this version.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
In this regard, I follow the view of control espoused by Higgins (1989) and implicit in Hale (1989). Admittedly, the predicate look like, as David Dowty has reminded me, can under some circumstances occur in a non-like-subject construction, e.g., in a sentence such as The carpet looks like the dog has been playing in the mud again; still its more usual construction has the matrix subject and subordinate clause subject obligatorily coreferent. Moreover, look like and other predicates like it may be raising predicates (see Rogers (1972, 1974) for some discussion); nonetheless, the coreference relations indicated in the sentences in (1) illustrate a type of control, construed broadly, holding into a finite complement clause.
English and Greek (both Ancient and Modern) examples are given below, especially in Section 4. The Modern Persian facts are discussed in Hashemipour (1988). Both Algonkian types of control construction are exemplified by the Cree sentences in (i) and (ii) from Ahenakew (1989): (i) ê-nohtê-kocîhtât kinwês êkâya ka-mîcisot PV-want-try something/3SG long-time not FUT-eat/3SG ‘He wanted to try and see if he could go for a long time without eating’ (literally: “He wanted to try that he not eat for a long time”) [pp. 54-5, ¶1 (ii) mitoni kwayask ê-kakwê-pamihât really properly PV-try-look after-3/3′ ‘He was really trying to take good care of them’ [pp. 28-9, ¶3]. Similar constructions are to be found in other Algonkian languages, in some cases with forms cognate to the Cree control elements in (i) and (ii); Ojibwa, for instance, has a preverb ggwe-‘try to’ (cognate with Cree kakwê-) and a complement-taking verb ggwejtood ‘try to do something’, derived from ggwe-(see Rhodes (1985) (s.vv.)).
I refer here to the Indo-European languages in the above listing. I have no complete knowledge of Algonkian, and thus cannot say whether the patterns found in Cree and Ojibwa (see note 2) are found in all Algonkian languages or just in a subset of them; if these patterns are not pan-Algonkian, then this language family would offer the same type of potential for a consideration of control constructions diachronically.
The development of Umlaut in the various Germanic languages and consonant mutations in several Celtic languages are classic examples of the morphologization of processes that were phonologically conditioned in earlier stages of the languages in question. The development of an inflectional, synthetic future tense in most of the Romance languages out of a phrasal, analytic future in late Latin offers a good example of a once-syntactic construction becoming a matter of morphology at a later stage. See Joseph and Janda (1988) for further examples and discussion.
The schematic view in (2) is necessarily somewhat of an idealization in that it glosses over synchronic variation and thus does not provide for any representation of its role in diachrony.
One potential danger in the use of diachronic evidence for theoretical purposes, whether to elucidate a principle governing grammar formation or to confirm a proposed constraint on rule application, is that the extent and nature of such a contribution is highly theory-dependent; it may only be as valid as the theoretical underpinnings of the analyses, which, as is well known, are themselves subject to revision in the light of further research and knowledge.
Chen and Wang (1975), for instance, give the example of the stress alternation rule in English which has yielded noun-verb pairs (“diatones”) differing in stress placement (e.g., the noun récord versus the verb recórd), and point out that from a total of three diatones in 1570 and eight in 1582, “the inventory of diatones expanded to 24 in 1660, to 35 by 1700, to 70 by 1800, and stood at 150 in 1934” (p. 261), a clearly diffu-sionary development. This notion, by the way, is not restricted to recent lexical diffusionist approaches to sound change — even the Neogrammarians, committed as they were in theory to the regularity of sound change and its purely phonological conditioning, in practice occasionally adopted a diffusionist viewpoint. For example, Prokosch (1939:63-4) in discussing the rarity of Verner’s Law effects in Gothic states: “Verner’s Law must have preceded the Germanic accent shift... but it is... probable that Hirt... is right when he... assumes that Gothic carried out the accent shift sooner than the other Germanic languages, so that only a comparatively small group of rather isolated words were still subject to [Verner’s] law”; thus, in the branch of Germanic that was to become Gothic, he claims that the shift of accent to the initial syllable occurred in some words but not others, blocking Verner’s Law in some words but not others, an account that is tantamount to a diffusionary view of the spread of the change.
In classifying mind you as a Verb-Subject imperative, I am following the classification found in the OED (s.v.) in which this usage reflects an intransitive sense ‘pay attention’. It must be pointed out, however, that there is an earlier “quasi-reflexive” construction with mind, e.g., I mind me, you mind you, etc., from which this usage could in principle derive, though the semantics would argue against that; the meaning of the quasi-reflexive is ‘remember’, which is less appropriate for the sense of the modern mind you! than is the intransitive ‘pay attention’. The expression believe you me seems to be another instance in Modern English of an imperative with a post-verbal subject. I would argue, moreover, that even though these are frozen expressions in a certain sense, nonetheless the verbs in them are synchronically analyzable as imperatives, and show compositional nonidiomatic semantics, so that the question of how to analyze the post-verbal pronouns is a legitimate one. Thus I do not subscribe to the view that such expressions are irrelevant for a full synchronic account of the grammar. Lightfoot (1988:310) dismisses the coocurrence of innovative and older forms saying that “there is no ‘prediction’ here that... a speaker with the new PS rule [for ‘dative subject’ verbs] would never utter a sentence of the old form; speakers may have used the old forms from time to time in the same way that modern speakers say by and large, me thinks, if I were you, and many other less extremely antiquated forms, or even adopt expressions of other dialect groups occasionally”, even though an expression such as me thinks, unlike mind you, is distinctly noncompositional in its semantics and thus is a good candidate for having truly been lexicalized and so not subject to any synchronic parsing.
This outcome perhaps occurs less in sound change, where ultimate regularity, i.e., full generalization, of the change is the norm, but it does occur, and is certainly so for change in other domains.
My thanks to my wife, Mary E. Clark, for bringing this example to my attention.
This claim is based only on a search of the Oxford English Dictionary, and so is not necessarily a definitive dating of this contruction.
I hasten to add that such claims cannot be substantiated for the ENE examples though it certainly seems reasonable to assume that this manifestation of the construction has remained stable as to its structure.
I use PRO here only as a notational convenience, not because of the theoretical baggage it presupposes nor out of a commitment to a theory that operates with such empty categories. There have been several proposals concerning the status of PRO in universal grammar, e.g., that it is not a part of syntax (e.g., by Culicover and Wilkins (1986)), or that it might be best taken as assimilated to pro (e.g., in the “generalized control theory” of Huang (1987, 1989)), and linguists examining individual languages have on occasion independently proposed that particular languages do not have PRO (e.g., Greek, as discussed in Section 3, or Modern Persian, as discussed by Hashemi-pour (1988)).
As a nonstandard formation, this expression with far for... is hard to document. I have heard it on numerous occasions and indeed have said it myself. I did run across one citation in a newspaper article brought to my attention (for different reasons) by my colleague Mary Beckman; on page 2E of the Cleveland Plain Dealer Food section of April 9, 1990, the following sentence occurs (in a spoof on making gefilte fish): NEVER let him put your fish near his electric grinder. Far be it for you to accuse anyone unjustly, but you know he has ground dead carp in it.
I am indebted to Donka Farkas for suggesting this interpretation to me.
Again, the evidence comes from the citations given in the OED.
Early Modern English does show some examples of what ostensibly is this same expression except without a prepositional phrase with far and with a that-clause complement, e.g., from 1709: far be it that I should attempt to lessen the Acceptance... (Sir Richard Steele The Tatler No. 148, p. 4). Presumably, the lexical semantics of far in such sentences differs somewhat from other uses examined so far. Moreover, these examples suggest that a reanalysis of far be it from me + S to far be it + S, a reanalysis which, with a different spelling out of the sentential complement (under the assumption that for NP to VP constitutes an S), would give the far be it [[for NP][to VP]] construction, may have been arisen earlier in English than the current period. Given the chronology, though, of these examples, it seems that at some point, reanalysis of complementation with far did take place.
By restricting attention to worthy with personal subjects, I am purposely ignoring instances of this adjective from Middle/Early Modern English with an expletive subject and a that-clause as complement, as in the following examples taken from the OED (s.v. worthy): (i) It is wel worthye ∂at qua Mai bere no wel ne thole na wa ‘It is well worthy that (he) who may bear no well-being suffer no woe’ (Cursor Mundi 7311 (c. 1300)) (ii) Yt is worthy that man shulde calle... all the works of god to praise him (The Myroure of our Ladye II.288 (c. 1450-1530)). The Old English antecedents of this construction are not clear, and their occurrence in later stages of English may be a reflection of the movement away from thematic subjects with some matrix predicates mentioned in Section 2 and discussed by Higgins (1991). As far as Middle/Early Modern English is concerned, such sentences may involve an entirely different subcategorization with worthy than the examples with personal subjects, and so would be outside of the present concern.
The Middle English construction with an expletive subject and a that-clause complement exemplified in footnote 18 shows no control properties and thus, strictly speaking, is irrelevant here to the question of what happened to the apparent control construction of Old English with a that-clause. If, however, as suggested in note 18, that construction represents a different subcategorization, it may well be that the meaning of worthy in that usage is different from that found in the control construction; in that case, the same questions raised concerning the semantics of far in Section 2 and brought out in Section 4 for verbs meaning ‘try’ in Greek become relevant here.
The basic facts concerning ‘try’ in Greek have been discussed at various places in the literature, most notably in Philippaki-Warburton (1987), Philippaki-Warburton and Catsimali (1989), Philippaki-Warburton and Catsimali (1990), and Philippaki-Warburton 1989. These facts are repeated here, however, as a prelude to the material in this section pertaining to ‘try’ in Ancient Greek which has not been brought to light in this context before; some of this same material is discussed, in a somewhat revised form, in Joseph (1990).
This analysis is in keeping with the prediction made in Culicover and Wilkins (1986:121, fn. 2) that in languages without infinitives, “ ‘control’ would be accomplished differently” from the PRO “mechanism” posited for a language like English.
Philippaki-Warburton (1989) notes that the verb anangâzo ‘force’ shows similar properties to prospaθó: (i) anângasa ton jâni na fíji forced/1SG the-John/ACC SUBJUNC leave/3SG ‘I forced John to leave’ (literally: “I forced John that (he) leave”) (ii) anângasa ton jâni na mi fíγune NEG leave/3PL ‘I forced John that they should not leave’. The non-PRO analysis that she advocates for prospaθó should thus be extended to other control verbs.
I say “virtually” because an exception should perhaps be made for the forms found with the verb éxo ‘have’ in what are traditionally called perfect tenses, e.g., yrâpsi in éxo γrâpsi (ta paramíθia) ‘I have written (the stories)’ or γraména in éxo yraména (tia paramíθia) ‘I have (the stories) written’, though admittedly such forms may not truly be complements.
The facts in (20) directly falsify the prediction made by Philippaki-Warburton and Catsimali (1989:105) that such sentences should be ungrammatical in Ancient Greek.
This discussion illustrates, by the way, the point made earlier (see note 6) regarding how dependent claims about syntactic change — or language change in general — are on particular frameworks and the analyses they entail.
My thanks to Richard Janda for this particular insight.
It must be noted that there is room for a semantically based generalization here, so that reference to “lexical” should not be taken to imply entirely idiosyncratic behavior. In particular, another verb with a meaning similar to prospaθó, namely pasxízo ‘try hard, endeavor’, has the same noncontrol possibilities as prospaθó, with the meaning in noncontrol uses of ‘endeavor so that some situation comes about’, i.e., similar to the ‘facilitate’ meaning suggested for noncontrol prospaθó. Thus it may be that any lexeme with the meaning ‘try’ shows control while any lexeme with the meaning ‘facilitate’ does not, even if the same phonological material is used for each lexeme.
The discussion at the conference for which this paper was prepared, as reflected in the other papers in this volume, indicates the still-unsettled nature of these questions.
This is not to say that other types of external factors do not lead to change. A case in point with regard to control structures is the variability that can be observed with the control properties of so-called “dangling modifiers” in English prose (e.g., Walking down the street, a car hit me), in which prescriptive pressures seem to play a role in the interpretations some speakers put on such sentences.
Tsitsipis (1981:347) is careful to point out that some scholars of Albanian (e.g., Domi (1977)) argue that the “gerundial constructions as object complements were habitual only in the Geg dialect and later infiltrated into the literary language”, which is based on the Tosk dialect. Since Arvanitika is a variety of Tosk, it is possible that Tosk never had object control of the gerundive, and that the comparison between Shqip and Arvanitika discussed above is ill-founded. Nonetheless, it would then be the case, on Domi’s account, that Shqip acquired the object control possibility through contact, namely as a dialect borrowing from Geg, thus showing — in a different way from that indicated here — that control constructions can be affected by the external pressures of contact.
I am indebted to Donka Farkas for this suggestion and for her comments on the claims in this section.
For examples, even though a distinction in morphology between inflectional and derivational morphology is well-motivated synchronically and accepted in most — but not all — theories of morphological structure, the evidence of differential behavior diachronically provides further — not unwelcome — support for this distinction. In particular, levelling within inflectionally related forms (i.e., paradigms) occurs quite commonly without extending to derivationally related forms, as for example when Proto-Greek *khtho:n ‘earth/NOM.SG’, *khthom-ós ‘earth/GEN.SG became khtho:n, khthon-ós by levelling but the derived adjective, *khthamalós ‘near/on the ground’, was unaffected by the extension of the-n-of the nominative throughout the paradigm.
This is not to say that language contact leads to aberrations.
I leave open at this point the question of the exact form that such a mechanism should take, but it could simply involve reference to a difference in structural dominance, e.g., within the verb phrase versus external to the verb phrase, or the argument structure of governing verbs, or the like.
These facts have been discussed elsewhere (e.g., in Joseph (1978/1990, 1980, 1983)), though not from the perspective adopted here. For additional discussion of syntactic changes involving the infinitives in Greek, interpreted according to several current theoretical frameworks, as well as additional data, see Chaski (1988).
See, for instance, Perlmutter and Postal (1983), for an account of ascension rules in syntax; the generalization proposed there — the Relational Succession Law — provides some motivation for treating these constructions in a parallel fashion.
Ancient Greek examples of these constructions are given below (note that (iii) involves both Subject-to-Subject Raising and Tough Movement): (i) allà póthi Zeús é:thel’ Akhaíoisin but somehow Zeus/NOM wanted/3SG Achaeans/DAT thánaton poléessi genésthai (Iliad 19.274) death/ACC many/DAT happen/INF ‘But Zeus somehow wanted death to befall many Achaeans’ (ii) dokéeis dé moi ouk apinússein (Odyssey 5.342) seem/2SG but me/DAT not be-senseless/INF ‘You do not seem to me to be senseless’ (iii) háute:... he: ergasía matheîn... hraíste: this-the-work/FEM.NOM learn/INF easiest/FEM.NOM edókei eînai (Xenophon Oeconomicus 6.9) seemed/3SG be/INF ‘This work seemed to be the easiest to learn’.
It must be admitted that sentences such as these are unusual in Modern Greek for a variety of reasons. For one thing, nonraising constructions with these predicates are more common than raising constructions. Also, the presence of a complement clause subject pronoun makes (31a) and (31b) exceptional since Greek is a language that regularly suppresses unemphatic subject pronouns; even though the subject pronouns can be emphasized by the presence of such “strengthening” elements as o í∂jos’ self’ or mono ‘only’, the occurrence of the pronouns still makes the sentences unwieldy. Still, these sentences are within the bounds of acceptability according to some native speakers I have consulted over the years, and the examples cited here are ones that appear in published work elsewhere, (31a) coming from Philippaki-Warburton (1987:299), (31b) from Soames and Perlmutter (1979:165), and (31c) from Theo-fanopoulou-Kontou (1986:88). Moreover, Philippaki-Warburton (ibid.) reports when she consulted with several speakers, 13 out of the 20 surveyed found a sentence comparable to (31a) to be acceptable, a fact which means that there is some speaker variability here, but that there are speakers who do not reject such sentences. Accordingly, it seems these and similar sentences are generally to be accepted as grammatical, even if they strain the limits of acceptability. It should be noted that I do not accept the assertion of Philippaki-Warburton (1987:299) that a sentence such as (31a) is irrelevant “because the aftos (o í∂jos) is not a simple pronoun here, but an emphatic modifier referring to John”; the occurrence of o í∂jos is not obligatory for the pronoun aftós to appear (though it does facilitate its acceptable occurrence) and I see no basis for the implied syntactic distinction between “simple” pronominal use of aftós and “an emphatic modifier” use of the same element.
The element na is best treated not as a complementizer proper but rather as a subjunctive mood marker. Thus the subjunctive complements in (30) and (31) have no overt complementizer, though there are verbs, such as θeoró ‘consider’, which occur in the pattern of (30a) with pos or óto (‘that’) as an overt complementizer.
The chronologically gradual and lexically diffusionary spread of finite complementation through syntactically defined classes of verbs in Post-Classical Greek is described in some detail in Joseph (1978/1990: Chapter 2) and in Joseph (1983: Chapter 3), with a briefer account in Joseph (1980).
For details on the development of the infinitival relative construction in Greek, see Joseph (1978/1990: Chapter 10).
Raising out of finite clauses, possibly resulting in the occurrence of a copy of the raised nominal in that clause, has been recognized for other languages; for instance, Frantz (1978, 1980) argues for such a construction in Blackfoot, and Davies (1989) gives a similar analysis for Javanese. Rogers (1972, 1974) treats at least some manifestations of the English construction with look like (and other such predicates), e.g., There looks like there’s going to be a riot, as an instance of Copy Raising (see also note 1).
I realize that I have strayed from this injunction myself in a few cases, in this paper and elsewhere. This assertion is in keeping with the findings of Higgins (1989), who, in tracing the development of (subject-to-subject) raising constructions out of earlier control constructions, finds (ms., p. 3) that “English did not catch raising all at one times across a whole range of predicates. Each predicate has its own development, and there is little sign of interaction between predicates, except where analogical generalization is at work”.
Bibliography
Ahenakew, Freda (trans. and ed.): 1989, Kiskinahamawâkan-âcimowinisa. Student Stories (Memoir 2, Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics). Saskatoon and Winnipeg: Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre and Algonquian and Iroquoian Linguistics.
Chaski, Carole E.: 1988,’ syntactic Theories and Models of Syntactic Change: A Study of Greek Infinitival Complementation’, Unpublished Brown University Ph.D. Dissertation.
Chen, Matthew and William Wang: 1975, ’sound Change: Actuation and Implementation’, Language 51, 225–281.
Comrie, Bernard: 1985 [1988], ‘Reflections on Subject and Object Control’, Journal of Semantics 4, 48–65.
Culicover, Peter and Wendy Wilkins: 1986, ‘Control, PRO, and the Projection Principle’, Language 62, 120–153.
Davies, William: 1989, ‘Javanese Copy Raising’, paper presented at 15th Minnesota Conference on Languages and Linguistics, University of Minnesota, October 1989.
Domi, Mahir: 1977, ’sur quelques concordances et parallelismes syntaxiques Albano-Roumains’, Studia Albanica 1, 79–81.
Farkas, Donka: 1988, ‘On Obligatory Control’, Linguistics and Philosophy 11, 27–58.
Frantz, Donald G: 1978, ‘Copying from Complements in Blackfoot’, in E.-D. Cook and J. Kaye (eds.), Linguistic Studies of Native Canada, University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, pp. 89–109.
Frantz, Donald G: 1980, ‘Ascensions to Subject in Blackfoot’, Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, pp. 293–329.
Givón, Talmy: 1979, ‘Prolegomena to any Sane Creology’, in Ian F. Hancock (ed.), Readings in Creole Studies, Story-Scientia, Ghent’, pp. 3–35.
Hale, Kenneth: 1989, ’subject Obviation, Switch Reference, and Control’, paper presented at MIT Symposium on Control, Linguistics and Philosophy 48, 51–77.
Hashemipour, Peggy: 1988, ‘Finite Control in Modern Persian’, WCCFL 7: Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford Linguistics Association, Stanford, pp. 115–128.
Higgins, Roger: 1989, ‘From the seemly to sheer appearances: Remarks on the controlled semantic descent of raising in English’, paper presented at MIT Symposium on Control.
Higgins, Roger: 1991, ‘From Mishap out of Control’, unpublished manuscript.
Hock, Hans H.: 1986, Principles of Historical Linguistics, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.
Hooper, Joan Bybee: 1976, Introduction to Natural Generative Phonology, Academic Press, New York.
Huang, C. T. James: 1987, ‘Towards a Generalized Theory of Control’, unpublished manuscript.
Huang, C. T. James: 1989, ‘Complex Predicates in Generalized Control’, paper presented at MIT Symposium on Control (March 17, 1989).
Iatridou, Sabine: 1988, ‘On Nominative Case-Assignment and a Few Related Things’, unpublished MIT paper.
Joseph, Brian D.: 1978/1990, ‘Morphology and Universals in Syntactic Change: Evidence from Medieval and Modern Greek’, Harvard University Ph.D. Dissertation, printed and distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club. [Updated version published (1990) in Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics series, New York: Garland Publishing Inc.].
Joseph, Brian D.: 1980, ‘Linguistic Universals and Syntactic Change’, Language 56, 345–370.
Joseph, Brian D.: 1983, The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Supplementary Volume 1).
Joseph, Brian D.: 1986, ‘On Automatic and Simultaneous Syntactic Changes’, in B. Joseph (ed.), Studies on Language Change (Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics Vol. 34), pp. 28-55.
Joseph, Brian D.: 1990, ‘Mikrí simvolí sti ∂iaxronía tu elénxu sta eliniká’ [“A Small Contribution to the Diachrony of Control in Greek”], To appear in Melétes ja tin elinikí γlósa / Studies in the Greek Language. Proceedings of the 11th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki.
Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D. Janda: 1988, ‘The How and Why of Diachronic Morphologization and Demorphologization’, in M. Hammond and M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, Approaches in Modern Linguistics, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, pp. 193–210.
Kiparsky, Paul: 1968a, ‘Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change’, in E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistc Theory. Holt, New York, pp. 171–202.
Kiparsky, Paul: 1968b, ‘How Abstract is Phonology?’, in O. Fujimura (ed.), Three Dimensions of Linguistic Theory, TEC Company, Tokyo, pp. 5–52.
Kiparsky, Paul: 1982, Explanation in Phonology, Foris, Dordrecht.
Ladusaw, William and David R. Dowty: 1988, ‘Toward a Non-grammatical Account of Thematic Roles’, in Wendy Wilkins (ed.), Thematic Relations (Syntax and Semantics 21). Academic Press, New York, pp. 62–72.
Lightfoot, David: 1979, Principles of Diachronie Syntax, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, Volume 22).
Lightfoot, David: 1988, ’syntactic Change’, in F. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Volume I. Linguistic Theory: Foundations. Cambridge Unviersity Press, Cambridge, pp. 303–323.
Newmark, Leonard, Peter Prifti, and Philip Hubbard: 1982, Standard Albanian. A Reference Grammar for Students, Standford Unviersity Press, Stanford.
OED = James Murray et al.: 1933, The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Perlmutter, David M. and Paul M. Postal: 1983, ‘The Relational Succession Law’, in David M. Perlmutter (ed.), Studies in Relational Grammar 1. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 30–80.
Philippaki-Warburton, Irene: 1987, ‘The Theory of Empty Categories and the Pro-Drop Parameter in Modern Greek’, Journal of Linguistics 23, 289–318.
Philippaki-Warburton, Irene: 1989, ‘’subject’ in Greek and English’, unpublished Reading University manuscript.
Philippaki. Warburton, Irene and G. Catsimali: 1989, ‘Accusativus — cum infinitivo sta arxéa eliniká’ [“Accusative with Infinitive in Ancient Greek”]. Meletés ja tin elinikí γlósa / Studies in Greek Linguistics. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics. Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, A. Kiriaki∂i, Thessaloniki, pp. 89–108.
Philippaki-Warburton, Irene and G. Catsimali: 1990, ‘The Status of PRO and NP-Trace in Ancient Greek: Implications for the Definition of Subject’, paper read at annual meeting of Linguistic Association of Great Britain, April 1990.
Piggott, G. L.: 1980, ‘Implications of Linguistic Change for Concrete Phonology’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25, 1.1–19.
Prokosch, E.: 1939, A Comparative Germanic Grammar, Linguistic Society of America, Philadelphia (William Dwight Whitney Linguistic Series).
Rhodes, Richard: 1985, Eastern Ojibwa-Chippewa-Ottawa Dictionary, Mouton Publishers, Berlin (Trends in Linguistics. Documentation; 3).
Rogers, Andrew: 1972, ‘Another Look at Flip Perception Verbs’, Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 14–16, 1972. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 303–315.
Rogers, Andrew: 1974, ‘A Transderivational Constraint on Richard?’, Papers from the 10th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 551–558.
Soames, Scott and David M. Perlmutter: 1979, Syntactic Argumentation and the Structure of English, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Theofanopoulou-Kontou, Dimitra: 1986, ‘∂omés apalifís andikiménu simbliromatikís (= COD Constructions) kai katanomí tu klitikú: períptosi estiáseos tu ipokiménu’ [“The Clitic/Gap Alternation in COD Constructions: the Involvement of the Focalization of the Subject”], in Meletés ja tin elinikí γlósa / Studies in Greek Linguistics. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Meeting of the Department of Linguistics. Faculty of Philosophy, Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, A. Kiriaki∂i, Thessaloniki, pp. 87–108.
Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence Kaufman: 1987. Language Contact. Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Tsitsipis, Lukas: 1981, ‘Language Change and Language Death in Albanian Speech Communities: A Sociolinguistic Study,’ Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Wang, William S-Y.: 1969, ‘Competing Changes as a Cause of Residue’, Language 45, 9–25.
Warner, Anthony: 1982, Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Joseph, B.D. (1992). Diachronic Perspectives on Control. In: Larson, R.K., Iatridou, S., Lahiri, U., Higginbotham, J. (eds) Control and Grammar. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 48. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7959-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7959-9_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4149-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7959-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive